A DeFi project reaching its mid-term stage often sees many people habitually focusing on technical strength and TVL numbers. But the real pressure points are usually hidden elsewhere: how decision-making authority is distributed, and who has the final say when things go wrong.

Take the synthetic asset track as an example. When a project evolves from a niche experiment into a true financial infrastructure, and synthetic stablecoins begin to circulate on a large scale, any parameter change—such as adjusting collateral ratios, fine-tuning yield distribution rules, or loosening or tightening incentives—can quickly impact user confidence. Seemingly insignificant technical decisions can trigger chain reactions in minutes. That’s why, at this stage, governance mechanisms shift from optional to vital.

Many DeFi projects now stand at this crossroads. On one hand, they advocate for decentralization and community-driven development; on the other, their operations still rely on the core team’s quick decision-making to stabilize the situation. This game between efficiency and ideals may seem trivial, but it directly determines how far the project can go. Early on, someone needs to take charge; mid-term, authority must be gradually delegated—this balancing act is no easy feat.

Another often overlooked risk is user behavior reversal. When the market is good, everyone is saving and earning yields; but once sentiment shifts, even the most loyal users may rush for the exits. This liquidity shock tests any financial system, and it’s even more critical for decentralized protocols. No matter how perfect the parameter design, market sentiment can suddenly turn hostile.